POINTE WEST MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
REDUS EL, LLC AND POINTE WEST SCHOOL PROPERTY, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's declaratory judgment determining that appellee Pointe West School Property, LLC held valid title to a tract of property within a planned development, rejecting the Master Association's claim that the property was a common area. The concurring opinion clarifies that the judgment did not eliminate the Master Association's ability to enforce declaration covenants against the property.
The trial court properly determined that PWSP held valid title to the property and that the property was not a common area belonging to the Master Association. However, the property remains subject to the Declaration of Covenants, and the Master Association retains the right to enforce the Declaration's provisions against the property.
[1] A quitclaim deed does not release property from a declaration of covenants or the right of a master association to enforce its covenants and obligations against the prope…
[2] A deed made specifically subject to a declaration of covenants is bound by those covenants.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Nothing in the quitclaim deed released the property from the Declaration or the planned development, or the right of the Master Association to enforce its covenants and obligations against the property.”
Establishes that the quitclaim deed did not extinguish the Declaration's application to the property or the Master Association's enforcement rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePointe West Master Property Owners Association, as the Master Association of a planned development, claimed a tract of property as a common area. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Declaration Of Covenants cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and KUNTZ, J., concur. WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion.
WARNER, J., concurring specially. In this appeal of a declaratory judgment determining the validity of a tract of property deed within a planned development, of which appellant is the Master Association, I concur with the affirmance of the trial court’s judgment. The Master Association had claimed the property as a common area, but the court properly determined that the succession of deeds, which ended with the deed to appellee Pointe West School Property, LLC
(PWSP), was valid under the Declaration of Covenants of the planned development.
I write to comment on appellee PWSP’s position in its brief. PWSP acknowledged that the quit claim deed from the developer-controlled association to its predecessor in title, appellee Redus, did not invalidate the Declaration as to the subject property. However, PWSP claims that the quit claim deed “included the release and disclaimer of any rights or interests the Association might have had to enforce provisions of the Declaration as to the School Site.” (Emphasis supplied). Nothing in the quitclaim deed released the property from the Declaration or the planned development, or the right of the Master Association to enforce its covenants and obligations against the property. Moreover, the deed to PWSP was made specifically subject to the Declarations.
The trial court’s final judgment did not find that the Master Association had lost all ability to enforce the Declaration’s conditions, as those conditions may apply to the subject property. All the court found was that appellee PWSP had a valid title to the property, and the Master Association could not claim the property as one of its common areas. The property in question was never removed from the Declaration. What appear to still be issues are how to categorize the property within the Declaration and what obligations PWSP has under the Declaration. As the parties apparently are diametrically opposed on those issues, more litigation is likely.